God, what's the nature of... ?

if he is perfect*

if he is perfect

Midkiff, dont fall into the logic trap. You have defined a "logic" problem and seek for the answer outside of the constraints of that way of thinking.

An example of what I am talking about is:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

this is an old logic problem that has no adequate logical answer, just like the one you posted. Yet because there is no logic answer doesnt mean that therefore there is no chickens or eggs. WHich is essentially the type of answer you are trying to place on your perfect God question.

The egg, the chicken is subject to evolution, the chicken we know today was born of another slightly different creature (very slight), which would've come from an egg, from a slightly different creature and so on...


on the God thing, [i can't believe this statement]

as an atheist the best summary of the existence of God i have heard is from southpark

"Maybe beliveing in God makes him exist"

everyone has some concept of God, if your thoughts have some form of existence then so must God

Thats not a 'logic' answer

it is a practical answer from a Darwinist evolutionary viewpoint. which further proves my point. Dont try to use logic word arguments to prove a point. The real life answer is not to be found in the same context

Logic is only useful when you lack a realistic practical answer.

For me God exists only in the mind of believers

there is no evidence to prove an existence, therefore there is no existance

Prove you love your mum.

Prove fire isn't alive.

Prove that a supreme being isn't real...

well, technically in logic you cant prove a double negative, so its impossible to prove there is no God using logic.

So Pommy bubbles, getting back to the topic, if you dont believe in a God, how can you have a definition of Him?

Woodland apple that's a terrible argument,

If you don't believe in a god you can have exactly the same definition of him as someone who does believe - because it is a definition not an experience. A definition is a formal passage describing the meaing of a term, in this case that term is "god"

A non-believer can use the same definition but cannot share the same experience OR they can share the same experience but nominate it to a different cause based upon either reason or belief. The essence of the difference is these 2 terms, Faith is essentially a belief without proof (by definition) If proof existed it wouldn't be faith - essentially religion boils down to putting your trust in faith, a cleverly designed paradigm designed to put value to blind obedience. It's no different to the story of the emperors new clothes, the emperor is the "faithful" the weavers are the "clergy" the courtiers are the "congregation" and the "naive" child raises the cry of the atheist. The Emporer is at first dubious then convinced, with that belief reinforced by everyone else saying how fine the clothing is, the more people who agree the stronger the reinforcement until the child is stoned for heresy.

Refuge crew - you can prove you love your mum, you can have a polygraph or a brain scan (using a control to show association)these are accepted systems for testing truth (as believed by the person being tested)
Fire isn't alive - it's a physical process throughly documented as a simple chemical reaction between individual atoms and molecules which obey the laws of brownian motion if it IS alive it has no feelings or sentience as it doesn't have the chemistry associated with either

I would be very interested in putting the pope and a number of religious and non religious people (of different faiths) on a polygraph including questions on the existance of god, if only to see how faith can effect the outcome and how responses will vary to people with the same evidence on a question regarding their belief. Would you have a clear split, would everyone have an inconclusive result... *is off to look to see if it's been done* I know polygraphs are controversial but with a large enough group testing it may yeild interesting results.

Mynci, we are after (At least what I interpreted from the topic) is what God means to us - which is experience far more than clinical. all Im saying is that how can God be cruel, imperfect or for that matter kind and perfect etc - if you dont beleive in Him? Surly you would think He is nothing; as you believe He doesnt exist. I thought we werent after dictionary definitions, but what God means to us. If you dont believe God exists how can you give Him attributes?

That may be what faith means to you, but I can assure you that it is not what most people who actually have faith see it. And I would also add that faith is different from religion.



I would disagree with this hugely. our experiences are what defines things for us.

A man who climbs a mountain will see it differently than a man who drives up it. Their definition of that mountain will be different.

A climber will look at a knot in a far different way than a sailor - despite the knot actually being the same. A dictionary might give us a definition, but experience puts it into context, and it is what we relate to far more than the dictionary definition.

I have to say I don't agree with that, the climber and the driver will both have the same definition of the mountain however they will have a different experience of it which is my point, the definition of a mountain would be the same, a large mass of rock formed by massive techtonic pressures, the experience of conquering it would vary greatly. they still climbed the same mountain, their experiences didn't change the vast immutable rock enough to consider it a different mountain

the sailor and climber on the other hand would probably look at different knots in reality however they would both look at them as knots an organised tangle of rope used to secure something, they would both still call it a knot, this would be an example of looking at different reasons for the knots purpose, unless you are saying gods purpose is based upon the person beholding him then this would be a poor example also.

A definition is described thus:
def·i·ni·tion   /ˌdɛfəˈnɪʃən/ Show Spelled[def-uh-nish-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
2.the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
3.the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
4.Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
5.Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.

the overlying concept here is to make clear, if definitions were soley of matter of perspective then they wouldn't be clear and would therefore remain undefined. What you are expressing as definition is in fact a perspective, a variable viewpoint based upon personal experience.

I agree faith and religion are different however all religion is based on faith, not all faith is based upon religion, if religion weren't based upon faith then there would be evidence to support the existence of god(s) whereas there isn't, there is however the BELIEF in the existence of god(s) which makes it a faith.

Experience does not create definition, What you suggest means that If I have never flown I cannot define flight, whereas I can. I can also define a dog having never been one. I have no perspective of flight or dogs, but I can clearly define them.

it may just sound like semantics, but what I think you are really trying to say is how can a non-believer have a perspective of god(s) having never experienced them, to which I would say because we have a perspective of religions, churches and those who follow them and draw conclusions from those. That is where I drew my perspective (of religious faith) and compared it to the story of the emporers new clothes. god is not apparent in the story the evidence comes from those who perceive to see the clothes (god(s)) and their actions. indirect evidence if you will, the way you can spot a planet lightyears way by the wobble of it's star without actually seeing the planet, we know it's there, we can't see it, but we still have evidence to support it's existence. there is unfortunately at this point no god wobble.

God is a concept, that in times gone by has been a stopgap for science

and why do you keep saying 'him'?

lots of people have been using this term

if god is a formless entity throughout the universe how can it have a gender

and people asking how to disprove god???

i have 7 arms.

seeing as you don't know my how would you disprove me? through experience? that is a form of evidence. whre is the evidence for God?

and don't try to cite the 'design' of the world and all those other theological ideas i'm talking about hard evidence

Mynci, I dont disagree with your last point at all. I guess Im looking at it from a what do things mean to us, not just from a what they are. Identities and our relationship with things are defined by our experiences, and tend to shape our way of thinking.

I believe that there is evidence for God outside of blind faith. And my point at trying to get people to think more about their own definition of God is in a way trying to make people realise that you cant use your definition of God to undermine someone else's.

Pommy Bubbles;
I refer to God as Him because Im christian, and the bible refers to God as "He"; so I do also. I also capitalise the first letter to show it as a noun.

I wouldnt be able to disprove your having 7 arms using logic. which was my point, you cant prove a negetive using logic. I could use logic to prove you only have two arms, or less.

I refuse to get drawm into a proof thing with you particulary as you have made it clear you are going to refute anything I might say if you personally dont agree with it. Its a pretty handy way of always being right.

I could easily throw it the other way, where is the hard evidence for the evolution origins of life? Or if thats too hard just enough hard evidence to prove evolution, it is harder than you think.

You cannot prove, nor disprove a being whose very nature is beyond our understanding.
Neither can you prove or disprove the nature of such a being.

On this topic there is only belief based on faith, or a lack of belief.

Even the belief that there is no god is a belief based on faith.

The lack of belief is to believe neither option, not to believe there is a god and not to believe there is not one, knowing only that we do not know.

.... whereas "knowing that we don't know something" would already indicate that we at least know that bit. ...

And personally I'm not certain of even this anymore...

Hence we might all be much closer to the answer than we are ready to admit to ourselves and others.
Maybe ALL that what we project and imagine - each of it - is a bit of 'that' what really is.

Maybe that what we want God to be doesn't need any proof, because all IS proof of it. Maybe we're getting caught up in semantics, comfuzzling/struggling to put in words something that in reality needs to be experienced (thanks Mynci ). Maybe the idea of the flying spaghetti monster is as valid as that of any other cult or religion... ?

If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, then all of that what is t/here has a right to exist and to be expressed.

If I would have a distinct experience of that what God is then all that what is around me is beyond any judgment because it simply is an expression of the divine, an expression of beauty.

Beyond my own cheekiness and attempt to prove everybody else wrong and my own ass to be the only right(eous) one: I just came back to the state of simply being interested in how that divine manifests within someone I call 'you'... and how this 'you' looks at the exact same as 'me', seeing it (completely) different...

When you say you believe there is evidence do you believe evidence will be found or do you just believe we already have the evidence? or is this another example of religion relyinig on belief / faith

Proof of evolution:

1 - every living organism has to come from a live parent - true
2 - Not all creatures are the same some are simple some are comples (vertebrates and invertebrates for example) - true
3 - There is fossil evidence of both complex and simple creatures layered through the strata - depest rock layers = no life, middle layers simple life, upper layers many types of life and the earliest fossils are all simple the more recent layers more complex - in every excavation there has not been 1 example of this trend breaking (and it would take only 1)

if every living creature had to have at least 1 parent and fossils from before do not match any creatures living today it means what was around before was our ancestry if it was different to us now we must have gone through speciation (evolution) this is evidentary fact, once we find a break in the trend then darwinism will have had it's day. Those who cannot see this as evidence need to go back and spend a little more time in the classroom and stop repeating tired arguments that are now outdated.

Also dogs are on the verge of speciation we have selectively bred them for so long that there are several breeds which are already unable to reproduce togther (although for purely physiological reasons however this is the first step to speciation.

finally - whales have vestigial hip bones meaning they had an evolutionary past on land as this does not occur in any other marine creature.
Giraffes have a nerve (vagus nerve) that runs from the throat to the brain which loops down round the aorta and then up the neck to the brain, this has been proven as occuring due to evoultion because fish have the same nerve, however in fish it runs straight from the throat to the brain, however as the neck extends and the head angles down the distance between the brain and throat increases and the most direct route is no longer the route the nerve can take because in fish it passed behind the aorta straight up, in mammals it now has to go down, round the aorta and back up.

True most of the evidence is indirect but the volume of evidence the frequency and the fact that even humans have used selective breeding to prove the process works builds a clear picture - (like the wobble of a star showing a planet in orbit)

Also there is the clear and total lack of ANY evidence of any other method for the diversity of life, god(s) would have had to create large populations of each creature otherwise they would never have survived, there is a genetic diversity of only about 800 bengali tigers (many more individuals, and may be a different species of tiger I can't recall exactly) and even this is seen as too small a population to save the species.

Oh and the Miller-Urey Experiment also shows how bio-molecules can be formed using earths early atmosphere from inert chemical compunds also present in earths early past for a start of biology from chemistry

No you will not SEE evolution occuring as it takes thousands of years in most cases, but now we understand the process it will be possible to keep track of species to see if they do change it may only take 60,000 years but time is on darwins side (if we can only survive that long)



I'm very disappointed you brought up the "prove evolution" card, it's a little depressing when those with faith try and batter down probably the most tried and tested scientific biological principle, for no other reason than because it has been tried before, only those with no capacity for reason would even suggest it wasn't a real and valid process, or doubt it as a mechanism cfor change.

I'd prove he didn't have 7 arms and legs using logic by asking where they shopped for clothes

one other thing
Quote woodland apple:

"I believe that there is evidence for God outside of blind faith. And my point at trying to get people to think more about their own definition of God is in a way trying to make people realise that you cant use your definition of God to undermine someone else's."

What like trying to convert non-believers, or the crusades I think that's the pot calling the kettle black, I'm sure the bible says to go and spread the word of god - without spreading it and convincing people there WAS a god in the first place no one would believe becausae you would be unaware of god(s) existance as there is no evidence. without using your own view to undermine someone elses you wouldn't have religion, we aren't born believing in god someone has to tell us they believe he exists and use their definition of god to undermine the individual they are trying to convert - just like your parents did to you when you were so young you can't even really remember - it's called indoctrination of the young, commonly called grooming tactics it's what cults and paedophiles use to gain the confidence of children. I'm sorry for putting it like that but it's the unfortunate truth and the core behind my dislike for the church.

sorry but that's cobblers the belief there is no god is a belief based upon lack of evidence not faith.

You CAN prove a beings existance by communication in corporeal form - a form of address which apparently occurred quite a lot 2000 years ago, maybe this god fella died? the pictures all have him as looking pretty old and no-one has seen it for quite a long time. also if we don't know if it exists how can you know it's nature is beyond our understanding without having first communicated? this comment is pure sophistry.
Good try though

You can prove some types of beings existance, Mynci... but only if it interacts in ways we can are familiar with.



Why force the ideas solidified by the laws of this realm onto other forms of existance that is potentially unlike anything ever encountered?

There is no limit to possibility. The flying spaghetti monster is as valid a concept as anything else, even the infinite number of things nobody has ever dreamed about.

By founding your ideas based off our historical "interactions" with God you limit your concept of what "god" is. This makes your arguments deceptive by not specifying that it refers to a limited subset of the concept of a higher being. Does that mean your mention of "this comment is pure sophistry" hints at your own comment rather than mine?





Do you not put faith in the lack of evidence to indicate that there is no god?

And do you not put faith in the logical process that brought you to that conclusion?

Sorry to jump to the discussion uninvited, but that seems to be the trend anyway, and this is a topic of interest to me. If you feel it too inappropriate for me to cut in the middle of your dialog, you're free to ask me to leave.

When someone claims that something "exists" outside this realm, they are already attributing it to something that as far as we know happens only inside of this realm. It's perfectly fine to say that it is a possibility, or a possible concept. But to claim that it actually manifests is another thing, and needs grounding upon to be a reasonable statement. And the only convinving grounding one could possibly have would be based on the laws of this realm, because those are the only ones we know of. But then again, if one is saying that it isn't in our realm, this leads us to conclusion that there can't be a coherent statement made to support the existence or non-existence or said thing.

So yes, the possibilities are endless. But just because there can't neccesarily be positive evidence either way, that doesn't mean the probability of it actually existing is 50/50. The probability of a flying spaghetti monster actually existing is almost infinitely minute when compared to the probability or it being made up. That's because we know things are very easy to make up, and it happens all the time, we have evidence and past experience of it. There's no such evidence for a creature that defies the laws of physics. (Actually the FSM was started by a satired letter to a school council to protest the teaching of ID, saying that by those standards the concept of FSM should be tought aswell.. :p)
So as close as we can get to absolute certainty without actually getting there, we can say that the FSM doesn't exist. The concept of absolute certainty is useless anyway, because no one can have absolute certainty about anything. That would lead to nothing that anyone ever says having any bearing, if one only relied on absolute certainty.

The word "God" has to have some meaning of it's own, otherwise it's useless. If God is synonymous with "higher being", the term becomes vague beyond practical use. What does "higher being" even mean? I admit that there are more powerful and bigger beings than I am (aka other humans and animals). But in no way are they supernatural, which is what most people refer to when they say God. But the supernatural in your standards would be "a limited subset"? Then I totally agree that higher beings do exist, but we have other names for them and there's no need to call them God.

If one has a different view of what God is, they are welcome to define it. Either way, the concept of God has to be defined, in order for anyone to know what you are talking about.

Here too you redefine faith to be a word that holds no meaning to it. Belief is an assumption made about something based on the knowledge one has. Faith is belief without evidence. But in your terms anything that can't be known with absolute certainty, must be relied on with faith. Again, going with that definition, nobody could ever say anything definitive without having it be on faith. And that would leave the word "faith" without any true meaning, because there would be nothing to compare it to.

But even after redefining the word, a person who believes in the supernatural isn't left on the same grounding as someone who doesn't. Going with what seems to be your definition of faith, one could say that they have faith that things that are empirically verifiable, are so. The believer has faith in not only that, but in that things that aren't empirically verifiable, are so aswell. So the believer is still left with more faith, which I think was the issue here in the first place.

But to go to the actual definition of the word faith: belief without evidence. Belief in a lack of God is still more reasonable than a belief in one. Because absence of evidence is evidence of absence. So the non-believer still has more evidence on his side.
And there are of course mountains of empirical evidence that the logical process is a working process, which produces accurate results and lets us make observations and conclusions about the world. Therefore it doesn't take faith to believe that logical processes work.

I believe there is evidence now, or quite frankly I wouldnt be christian.

This is not direct evidence. These three points are so general and can be used to support any number of claims. There is no proof in these, proof would actually be the thousands of little details that link these three points.


Again you are using reasoning to make one link from an evolutionary belief to another, and have again not offered any FACTS. Also just to let you know, speciation is not evolution. Speciation is the removal of genes from a species. Evolution is the adding of them. Before you argue this then please go and actually read Darwins books. Because he himself makes the distinction. Darwin made three theories. Variation (Speciation), natural selection (survival of the fittest) and evolution. Creationism only argues against evolution. In fact speciation is how creationists defend the spread of animals after the flood.


Finally getting to actual proof. Though again your defending speciation which is what I agree with. I would also add that these new dog breeds are more prone to disease, have a shorter life span and seem to contradict the idea that we ‘evolve’ into something better.


Nice, some actually proof. Allow me to retort.
On of the problems with whale land to water evolution is that a ‘land whale’ (for want of a better term) would have had to get rid of its pelvis. As this would crush the reproductive orifice with its tail movements through water. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support limbs for walking. So the transitional animals wouldn’t be suitable for land or sea. This would fly against the theory of natural selection (unless the whale knew that it would eventually swim in future generations. Hmmmmm) Also the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail’s sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Now given a 5 million year timeline, with a generation time of say 10 years, popular genetic calculations say that no more than 1700 mutations could occur. Not enough for a land to sea evolution to have occurred.

As you can see, it is not as simple as, a whale shares something in common with land animals, it must have been one. This evidence could just as easily describe a common maker.



First of, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions. This can prove that this experiment that it is not enough to create life.
Maybe a quote from a biology professor at oxford is in order:
‘Soon after the Miller–Urey experiment, many scientists entertained the belief that the main obstacles in the problem of the origin of life would be overcome within the foreseeable future. But as the search in this young scientific field went on and diversified, it became more and more evident that the problem of the origin of life is far from trivial. Various fundamental problems facing workers in this search gradually emerged, and new questions came into focus … . Despite intensive research, most of these problems have remained unsolved.
‘Indeed, during the long history of the search into the origin of life, controversy is probably the most characteristic attribute of this interdisciplinary field. There is hardly a model or scenario or fashion in this discipline that is not controversial (Lahav, N., Biogenesis: Theories of Life’s Origin, Oxford University)


well actually, current theories show that in order for the transition from ape to man, roughly 130 mutations needed to occur every generation, which I think it is perfectly reasonable to have noticed SOME sort of intermediates, the lack of any cannot be so easily dismissed. Evolutionists want to jump in a straight line from A to Z while completely ignoring the rest of the alphabet.

Hold on, its OK for people to challenge and demand from Christians, but not OK for it to be reversed, why are you not disappointed in pommy bubbles? VERY hypocritical.
Are you kidding me? Biogenesis is one of the most CONTRAVERSIAL of all sciences. Im starting to think your faith is blinder than mine

I apologies if I came across that way, I have the same arguments against people pushing their faith of God, as I have for those that push their disbelief in God. If anyone came on this site scream hellfire and brimstone I would be first on the flame wagon. You would also notice that I only revealed my personal beliefs when directly asked. I was not groomed from birth to believe in God, I was raised Athiest, I also have mixed feeling about the church which is why I raised the distinction earlier about religion and faith. Im not going to argue against your point of view yet I was saddened when you related my faith with paedophilia, and while I am trying to respect your stance It hurts that you would put me in that category.
Honestly a lot of churches are not like that (at least the ones I go to) and by putting us all in the one basket and then making hurtful generalised claims are only dividing the community more. The attitide you bring to the table is why I get discriminated against every time I walk around wearing a cross.